When I walk around Ohio State’s campus, I often see posters that read “veganism is a moral issue” posted all over the place. Every time I see these posters, I question what exactly they’re trying to convey. I can understand that the practice of raising animals solely food is in many respects immoral, yet I sense there’s a broader message in this slogan.

For starters, this slogan could be interpreted negatively. The media often presents the stereotype of the judgy vegan. This stereotype implies that vegans may be self-righteous and quick to judge or lecture others about their eating habits, which can create tension in conversations about veganism. For this reason, it’s important to acknowledge that perspectives on morality can vary widely among different people and cultures. While some may see veganism as a moral imperative, others may not share those same ethical beliefs and may prioritize different values. When people are overly defensive or combative in conversations, it can be difficult for any significant progress to be made. This is certainly not helpful in the era of the climate crisis.

Conversations about veganism can become even more controversial when the cultural nuances surrounding food are explored. Food is deeply intertwined with cultural identity, tradition, and social practices. Many traditional cuisines around the world are not vegan, and individual food preferences often come from a person’s familial and/or cultural background. Asking individuals to adopt a vegan diet without considering these cultural nuances can be perceived as dismissive or disrespectful of their culture. It’s important to approach conversations about veganism with cultural sensitivity, acknowledging the diversity of food traditions and potentially finding new ways to incorporate plant-based options into existing traditional cuisines.

It is also necessary to recognize the role that privilege may play in the ability of a person to go vegan. Food deserts are areas in which access to affordable and nutritious food is limited, often due to the absence of grocery stores or farmers’ markets. In these areas, people often depend on fast food and convenience stores, which usually don’t have many healthy, plant-based choices. Simply telling the people who live in these areas that “veganism is a moral issue” overlooks the larger socioeconomic problems that they face in gaining access to a diverse group of foods. Addressing food deserts requires solutions that prioritize community empowerment and access to nutritious foods for all.

This dilemma has reminded me of Tom Mustill’s video starring Greta Thunberg titled “Our Relationship with Nature is Broken“. In this video Greta explains the ways in which humans are actively destroying the environment and how this disconnect can begin with the very food we eat. In the farming process, many animals are raised in dirty, crowded factories to be killed after their already short lives. The ways in which we farm animals for food not only impact their welfare as sentient beings, but they also contribute directly to the destruction of natural habitats. This, in turn, intensifies the pressures of human activity on animals and biodiversity overall. While Thunberg does not explicitly frame switching to a plant-based diet as a moral issue, she is in some way making a moral argument. She appeals to the people watching the video by persuading them to have empathy and not to exploit our ecosystems or other living beings any further.

I think Greta’s approach works better than the slogan in that her approach does not come off as super judgmental. Rather than be divisive, Thunberg makes a call for the masses to come together while still being firm in her message. Overall, it’s important to keep in mind that individuals’ dietary choices are personal and influenced by various factors, and that adopting a non-judgmental approach can promote empathy and understanding in discussions about veganism. For substantial change to occur, we must all come together and be willing to listen rather than tear down or villainize the other side.

Throughout history, people’s curiosity has led to many important discoveries and innovations. In environmental science, this strong desire for knowledge has motivated people to explore different ecosystems and climates. Studying our environment helps address problems such as climate change, habitat loss, and pollution. Moreover, when exploring the environment, an ethical dilemma often arises: the conflict between sometimes invasive scientific research and the desire to preserve ecosystems. This dilemma makes us reflect on our choices and question how we study the environment, leading us to carefully consider the balance between gaining knowledge and protecting the environment.

In her article, “Will Increasing Traffic to the Moon Contaminate its Precious Ice?”, Alexandra Witze introduces readers to the future of moon travel. In this future, there is a potential for exploration of ice deposits that reside on the moon’s poles. Scientists believe that the ice on the moon could reveal some of the secrets to both the earth’s and its own development. Two prominent arguments have arisen as a result of this potential for exploration. One side argues that the risk of contaminating the ice is too high. It could not only make any collected samples useless but also spread contamination to the nearby ice. They suggest leaving the ice untouched to preserve it for future scientists. People on the other side of the argument assert that the scientific record held in the lunar ice is something that needs to be studied. Whether or not contamination is even a serious worry is another point of contention within this argument.

The primary issue between these two viewpoints has yet to truly be solved. There is a very apparent divide between those who believe in the preservation of moon ice above all else, and those who believe in the advancement of scientific research at the possible cost to the lunar ice’s scientific makeup. This kind of dilemma isn’t unique to the exploration of moon ice. Similar dilemmas exist in the exploration and consequent loss of rainforests, deep-sea mining, and archeological excavation among other things. In each, the general argument boils down to whether we should leave ecosystems as they are or if we should utilize the resources available to us to explore the past and potentially make new ways for the future.

Across the board, the ethical dilemma arises in that the pursuit of knowledge can potentially jeopardize the subjects of study. Intrusive research methods and the inadvertent introduction of foreign elements pose significant threats to ecosystems. It seems that the more we seek to understand nature, the more we risk disrupting its delicate balance.

As the climate crisis intensifies, the need to protect vulnerable ecosystems becomes even more important. Our obligation to preserving the environment thus compels us to rethink how we study the environment. It calls for a reflection on the potential consequences of our aspirations and a commitment to minimizing the ecological impact of our studies. Likewise, it urges us to prioritize the long-term health of ecosystems over short-term gains in knowledge.

Is it possible for seeking knowledge and preservation to coexist? Witze explains that some proponents of a middle argument for lunar ice exploration suggest preserving one of the poles while opening the other to mining and exploration. While this offers a very literal solution to the problem, there may still be some value in finding common ground. Perhaps the solution is not to jump to either extreme, but rather to combine both objectives. Finding the right balance would require teamwork from scientists, conservationists, policymakers, and the public alike. By working together, we can create ethical research methods that value both understanding and protecting the environment.

Balancing environmental research and preservation is complicated, but it is also crucial. It is necessary that we keep researching to develop new, more sustainable ways of living, but is also necessary that we are conscious of not destroying the environment in the process. By working together and being careful, we can find a good mix of curiosity and preservation, ensuring a more sustainable future for both us and the environment.

In recent years, there has been a renewed interest in hemp, a cannabis plant that shows a lot of potential as a form of environmentally friendly alternative industry. I first learned of this phenomenon in Environmental Justice, a course I took last semester here at Ohio State. In a conversation about alternative industries that are showing the most growth and potential, I learned that cannabis and its different subspecies are gaining traction outside of their more well known recreational uses.

According to Professor Jeremy Baker, cannabis has been used for many millennia by many civilizations across nearly every continent excluding Antarctica. Different societies have used the plant for many different reasons. Some societies used the plant for medicinal purposes or as some kind of intoxicant, while others used cannabis mostly in textile creation. As it turns out, cannabis played a large role in the Age of Exploration as the main material used to make sails, flags and ropes on ships. Later on, cannabis continued to be used for other industrial purposes as a base for numerous textiles and paints in America. It wasn’t even until the 1930s that cannabis gained a negative connotation, became more well known as “marijuana”, and was first regulated by the Marijuana Tax Act of 1937. Cannabis’ rebranding as marijuana in lieu of its scientific name was a device by which anti-cannabis activists who used the spanish-sounding were able to stir up anti-Mexican sentiment. This incitement of the public’s biases against Mexicans was thus a driving force in outlawing cannabis in the United States. Since then, it has been a long and arduous process to decriminalize cannabis and open the doors to the revitalization of the cannabis industry.

The sector of the cannabis industry that sees the greatest potential for growth is hemp production. Hemp is a subspecies that is almost exclusively used for industrial purposes. Hemp is considered a relatively low-maintenance crop. It requires minimal amounts of water or pesticides and has a rapid growth cycle that would allow for multiple harvests throughout the year. Hemp stalks and fibers can be used to make a great number of products, ranging from textiles, clothing, rope, home furnishings, industrial oils, cosmetics, food, pharmaceuticals, and more. As awareness grows and governments increasingly recognize the differences between hemp and other subspecies with more psychoactive properties, there is a trend towards favorable policies for hemp cultivation and production.

The hemp industry presents many economic opportunities for farmers, entrepreneurs, and different communities. One such community is the Native peoples of America and their various tribes. Due to the article “Tribes Revive Traditional Hemp Economies” by Native American activist, writer, and industrial hemp grower by Winona LaDuke, I learned of the potential for not only the revitalization of hemp but also of the opportunity for Native tribes to produce hemp in a way that is sustainable for the people who produce the plant. There are currently plans for a vertically integrated hemp industry within the Lakota community that will create high-paying jobs and steady incomes for many Lakota tribes. After centuries in which Native people have had their land and livelihoods threatened by the government, the legalization of cannabis and hemp across the United States increases the possibility for self-sufficiency and cultural enrichment among their people. In addition, the environmentally friendly nature of hemp production aligns with their traditional values of environmental consciousness and connection. Vertically integrating the hemp industry is a promising alternative that will not only respect the cultural traditions of Native people but will also pave the way for their more sustainable and economically prosperous future. In the words of Winona LaDuke, “This is an opportunity for justice –social and ecological– in this post-petroleum economic transition.”

While I do agree with the notion that humans’ relationship with nature is broken, especially in the post-industrial age, I am also of the opinion that there is more to be said about the rhetoric surrounding the push for environmentalism. In a very general sense, environmentalism could be described as a concern for the wellbeing of the environment and the subsequent movement for its protection and ability to prosper. The argument for environmentalism is then deepened by those who condemn human domination over the earth and cite a lack of empathy for natural life as a major factor for this dominion. The issue arises when you consider who, what particular demographic or group of people, is spearheading these movements. I think it’s important to account for the role that privilege may play in who is able to make these standardizations about how much energy should be put toward acting sustainably. For this reason, I pose the question which I will attempt to navigate in this post: Are the roots of environmentalism entrenched in elitism?

I am economics major concerned with how to bridge the apparent gap in reasoning between economic expansion and environmentalism and as such take classes whose philosophies often directly contradict one another. One of the great umbrella concepts in modern economics is called the Great Enrichment. This phenomenon describes how over time, mainly since the 17th century, economies and living standards across the globe, by a measure of GDP per capita, have risen as a result of innovation. GDP per capita measures the total amount of output or consumption in a country per year and divides that figure by the country’s population to reveal the average consumption per person in some constant prices to adjust for inflation. This measure doesn’t necessarily account for income inequality, but it does have a strong correlation to it, that reveals a general increase in living standards for all people. It should also be noted that this enrichment has occurred sooner and at a more accelerated rate in some countries compared to others.

One of the main contributors to the Great Enrichment in more recent years, from the mid-19th century until now, is called the Green Revolution. The Green Revolution which is built upon the work of the Nobel-Prize-winning, American agronomist Norman Borlaug describes the invention and diffusion of high yield variety crops and intensive agricultural methods such as the use of fertilizers and pesticides. This innovation in the agriculture industry has led to a 51% increase in GDP per capita by 2010 across 83 different economies.

Here arises one of the disconnects between innovation and environmentalism. The use of pesticides and genetic modification of plants for mass production is generally frowned in the environmentalist perspective. However, the introduction of these technologies has led to an increase crop and food production and thus a decrease in starvation and hunger for masses of people. Borlaug, father of the Green Revolution, actually argues that although some environmental lobbyists are fighting the good fight, many are elitists who have never experienced the physical sensation of hunger like he and so many others have.

Under the economic framework, there are tradeoffs, or alternatives, to any choice. In this case, Borlaug chooses increased agricultural productivity and thus environmental degradation in lieu of what he asserts to be widespread hunger. The disconnect here is that sometimes humans struggle to survive or have their basic needs met and do not always have the capacity to make choices that are environmentally sound. Perhaps this is not the correct way of thinking, but still, it’s easy to make normative statements about how much empathy one should possess for nature when operating above a state of crisis. I do not personally believe that environmentalism is rooted in elitism, but I do think the point of perspective has some relevance within the argument. Moreover, the argument for sustainability should instead be centered around the mutual health benefits enjoyed by both nature and humans due to environmental perseveration.